bloggingfandomcom-20200215-history
Blog Wiki talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/Discretion to delete comments
Discretion to delete comments While it is very important for blog owner to take responsibility for what appears on that blog, the code should give the blog owner "sole discretion" for determining whether a particular comment is unacceptable. For instance, no one should be in the position of determining whether a comment or content is actually libelous or a copyright violation, particularly if there is a requirement that the deleted comment be stated and explained. If deletions require both notice and explanation, there could be an endless and distracting set of comments and responses about whether the deleted material violates the code or not. ::This rationale seems more like something that would ensure the smooth operation of a blog rather than part of a code of good conduct. There will be some bloggers who will abuse their ability to delete comments, so I don't like the idea that it goes against "good conduct" to point this out when it happens, or that "good conduct" allows this kind of abuse. Allowing meta-commenting should be left up to the individual blogger, but some form of removal notification should be expected if not required IMO. It builds trust in good blogs and outs the bad ones. ::I think a new module for this would be useful. Angela talk 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) :: new :: I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Rather than having to justify and defend a decision to remove a post or ban a poster, I think that it would be sufficient to have some sort of link to the banned person's own site where he can tell his side of the story. The larger and more public the forum, the more important this would be. Of course not needed when a post was just garbage or profanity or an ad/plug/etc. -- bemusedoutsider at LJ (was anon) changed, and changed back Someone changed "While it is very important for blog owner to take responsibility for what appears on that blog" to "As the blog owner is responsible for what appears on the blog" for a couple of reasons: - The "while" implies the parts of the sentence contrast with each other when actually, the first part implies the second part. - The original wording implies that a blog owner does not have to take responsibility for what is on their blog. I think a blog owner who does not take such responsibility does not need this module. :comment by bemusedoutsider: I think this is a dangerous change, and the 'while' wording better protects the blog owner. The 'as' wording might be taken as assuming/admitting liability. Even if some blog owners in your opinion do 'not need this module', some of them are likely to choose it anyway. These modules need to be safe for all blog owners, not increase anyone's liability. -- So I'm taking the liberty of changing it back to the 'While' wording, for safety pending further discussion. :Personally, I think either clause is a bit dangerous, and would like the module to begin with "The blog owner has sole discretion for determining whether a particular comment is unacceptable, and may delete, mask, or edit it as he/she sees fit." Selecting this policy/module is a choice of the blog owner, and does not need justification, especially not a justification stated within the module. :--bemusedoutsider at LJ I agree that the justification should be removed, but I'm not comfortable with "... may ... edit it as he/she sees fit" because that goes outside the scope of removing unacceptable content. I think "delete, mask, or sever" would be better. How about: "Unacceptable content may be removed at the blog owner's sole discretion." Dscrimshaw :I agree that 'edit' is a whole nother level and shouldn't be in the basic module here. Any blog owner who is up to editing the comments, could edit the module.:-) How about "delete, mask, or move"? "Mask" could be taken to include "disemvoweling". :--bemusedoutsider at LJ